For example, human pleasures would be considered larger than animal pleasures. Later in the text, Mill concludes Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit (Mill 84). On the other hand, Kantian ethics say that things are moral if they are influenced by only duty. Kant says Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a Good Will (Kant 85). The categorical imperative, according to Kant is the the claim that does not rely on any want or end. This idea is made up of two formulations. Kants explains, We must be able to will that a maxim of our action should be a universal law (Kant 92). When talking about the second formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant says So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case an an end withal, never as a means only (Kant 92). This idea would say that lying in any situation is wrong, because if everyone broke their promises, then a promise would not have any meaning. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, while Kantian ethics are a deontological theory. Overall, Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics have many differences.
Have you ever thought about the programming of driverless cars? What happens when there is going to be an accident? Should the car protect you or others outside of the car? Many of these questions have been thought about by Ariel Bogle, Oliver Smith, and Patrick Lin. Bogles article, Driverless Cars and the 5 Ethical Questions on Risk, Safety and Trust We Still Need to Answer, talks about the ethical challenges that will be faced with self-driving cars. She first asks about which risks are worth taking. Ariel Bogle explains how these types of cars have to judge risk versus reward. As of now, the self-driving cars are against taking any risks. She says, But no one wants a car that doesnÂ’t take any risks at all. It wouldnÂ’t leave your driveway (Bogle). Next, she asks if we are making the choices or if the car is. She brings up the trolly problem. Dr. Danks continues these thoughts on driverless cars and explains that They donÂ’t think in terms of people versus dogs versus light posts, he pointed out. They think in terms of high value or low value (Bogle). Continuing on, she asks if there are moral principles that we can all agree on or if we should choose our own. Bogle raises many questions on if a car should take a deontological or utilitarian approach when a wreck is about to take place. Should all cars be the same, or should the owner get to program it the way they believe it should be programmed?